³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am happy to do that. A number of local authorities have been impacted, including West Lothian Council, Aberdeen City Council and Clackmannanshire Council, and there have been impacts outside housing as well.

Your point about finance and insurance is important. Those are reserved matters, but we have had discussions about them. In Aberdeen, we have had UK Finance involved in discussions to try to give advice to people who own their properties, and the Association of British Insurers has also been involved in giving advice.

Each local authority will have a different mix. Aberdeen has a mixture of private owners and council tenants. I think that parts of West Lothian will be the same, as will Clackmannanshire. The local authorities will be assessing their options. We are in discussions with all three of them and we will continue those.

In discussions with the previous UK Government, it said that, on RAAC, the amount that would be spent would be what was required. We have written to the new UK Government on that and I am still to hear from it formally on that point. We will need to sit down with it and have discussions on that.

I am aware that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is considering a petition on the matter, and I suspect that I will be asked to appear at that committee at some stage, but I do not have a date for that.

We continue to engage with local authorities on RAAC. I will raise the issue when I meet my UK Government colleague, but we still await a reply from the UK Government on financing that work. We will continue to push it on the matter. As I said, I have met the local authorities on that. If Mr Griffin wants to write to me about visiting others, I will be happy to consider that.

Craig Campbell might be able to give a little bit more information.

I will come on to discuss the submission from Crisis, but Mr Griffin makes an important point. In terms of complexity, the benefit system more broadly needs to be simplified. We will continue to discuss that with Crisis.

In terms of its feedback on the LCM, Crisis obviously has front-line experience of the complexity of the benefits system. It is an important point, but it is much broader than this piece of legislation. Simplification of the benefits system is something that we would need to speak to the UK Government about.

Do colleagues have anything else to add on what Crisis said? No?

In that case, I am happy to come back to you on that, Mr Griffin, but I think that the point that Crisis has raised is much broader than just this piece of legislation. We are always discussing the issue in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and where the benefits system fits in, because it can overly complicate things. I am happy to take the point away and come back to you. Maybe we can take it up with Crisis. You have raised a very good point, but it is much broader than this piece of legislation.

That comes down to the technical discussions that are going on. I have met the developers on the issue, and I mentioned that I would be available for discussions at any time. About three or four meetings have taken place already. We are now down to the point of agreeing the technicalities. Without prejudice to any discussions, I am confident that we will have something early in the new year on which we can write to the committee.

Our approach is very much like the one that we used for the discussions on the SBA. We have been working hand in hand with the developers, and that has been the process over the past number of weeks and months.

I will bring in Stephen Lea-Ross to cover the technical aspects of the discussions.

We are starting to see that now. I acknowledged that issue, which was discussed during the passage of the bill. Over the period, we have tried to engage with individual residents and a group of residents on what we need to do. I mentioned the newsletter, which is incredibly important. Another key thing is working with factors. How do we make sure that we are engaging with them and getting the message out as best we can?

The communications have improved and they will continue to improve. I understand from the evidence that was taken before that there was an issue, but we are seeing an improvement. It is a really important point. I have acknowledged that we need to do better on communications, but I think that we are doing so now.

Stephen, do you have anything to add?

I will bring in my legal colleague. Laura, do you want to touch on the specific point about how that would work in practice?

Renters’ rights are one of the key issues in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment, so the provisions fit in with that. The Housing (Scotland) Bill is obviously looking at various other matters, such as rental disputes involving pets and so on. It is important that we have these provisions as part of that. The provisions are very explicit and right in your face, so I think that they give a strong message to people out there who are undertaking the practice that they cannot continue to do so.

First of all, this falls into broader renters’ rights provisions to increase the rights of renters. For a number of years, we have heard of people being discriminated against because they are on benefits. It is a surprise to lots of us that that has not been legislated against previously. It has been discussed a number of times.

You mentioned advertising, which is important. As I said, the measure falls into legislation to protect vulnerable groups.

There are a number of issues. We will probably come on to whether such discrimination is seen as a civil matter or a criminal matter in Scotland. Like Wales, we have decided to go down the route of making it a criminal matter. Therefore, we would say to people to report a case to Police Scotland and let the police take that up as a criminal offence, as it will be a criminal offence in Scotland if the Parliament consents to the LCM. Certainly, we would hope that people would take a case to the police and that the police would pick it up. The practice is not one that we can continue to see in the UK and in Scotland.

To build on what I said before, there were a number of discussions and meetings. The developers would come back to us, and we would go back to them—there were a number of occasions when that happened. One of the key issues concerns the addition of elements around audit and compliance. If you recall, that issue was raised by a number of members during the debate around these issues. People wanted to know how we could ensure that what we are doing is compliant and auditable, and wanted reassurance that we could have a look at what was going on at any particular point.

The issue just concerns the discussions and the to-ing and fro-ing that I mentioned in my previous answer in relation to ensuring that we and the developers were happy with what had been agreed.

Stephen Lea-Ross might want to add something about the technical discussions that he undertook with developers.

Stephen Lea-Ross touched on some of the points. There has been important assessment work going on—some developers have been in place and have been doing that anyway. One of the key things is to almost top and tail that process by looking at what else needs to be done in terms of assessment. There is existing documentation that could be used, but we need to get it up to the standard that we have agreed with the developers and signed a commitment on—that is incredibly important. That does not mean that the whole process will have to be done again. There will be some existing work that has been carried out that can be used as part of that process.

We have had extensive discussions with the developers; we have not made it to this position without speaking to them. We have looked into what they have been doing over this period of time, what learnings they have from what they have done and what additional work needs to be done. Those discussions on-going.

I will ask Stephen Lea-Ross to add anything that he thinks is relevant with regard to the technical points.